The Icelandic Local Government Election 2014
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Abstainers’ reasoning for not voting: The Icelandic local government election 2014 Grétar Þór Eyþórsson University of Akureyri Eva H. Önnudóttir University of Iceland Útdráttur: Í íslensku sveitarstjórnarkosningunum 2014 var kjörsókn minni en nokkru sinni fyrr og hafði hún þó minnkað töluvert í kosningunum 2010. Í þessari grein fjalla höfundar um hvaða ástæður fólk nefnir fyrir því að hafa ekki kosið árið 2014. Notuð eru gögn úr könnun sem gerð var sumarið 2014 meðal úrtaks 4845 kosningabærra einstaklinga á landinu öllu, þar sem þeir 630 sem sögðust ekki hafa kosið voru spurðir um ástæður þess. Sérstök áhersla er lögð á að greina ástæður eftir aldri kjósenda og eftir búsetu, auk þess sem einnig er tekið tillit til stærðar sveitarfélaga í íbúafjölda. Helstu niðurstöður eru að eldra fólk nefnir frekar efnislegar ástæður, er varða stjórnmálaflokka og stjórnmálakerfið, fyrir því að kjósa ekki, en ungt fólk að hafa ekki haft nennt því eða haft áhuga á því. Búseta virðist ekki skýra að neinu marki mun á því hvaða ástæður fólk hefur fyrir því að kjósa ekki. Því er velt upp hvort mun eftir aldri á ástæðum þess að kjósa ekki megi hugsanlega rekja til neikvæðrar reynslu eldri kjósenda af efnahagshruninu árið 2008, en jafnframt bent á að „nenna ekki að kjósa“ getur líka verið merki um óánægju með stjórnmál sem mögulega má rekja til hrunsins og atburða eftir það. Lykilorð: Kosningaþátttaka ■ aldur ■ höfuðborg-landsbyggð ■ dreifbýli-þéttbýli Abstract: In the Icelandic local government election in 2014 turnout was lower than ever before, and four years earlier it had already decreased considerably. In this article, the authors examine abstainers’ personal reasoning for not casting a vote. Using survey data, the focus is on questions about reasons for not voting, comparing age groups and whether voters live in the centre or the periphery of Iceland, as well as the population size of the voters’ municipalities. The main results are that older voters are more likely to name reasons having to do with the political supply (e.g., political parties) and the political system, and younger voters to say that they could not be bothered. We find negligible differences in reasons for not voting, depending on municipality size and centre vs periphery areas. We suggest that the age differences we find in reasoning to abstain could be due to the fact that the consequences of the financial crash in 2008 were more strongly felt by older voters. However, we also make the point that ‘not bothering to vote’ can indicate discontent which can possibly be traced back to the crash. Keywords: Electoral participation ■ age ■ centre–periphery ■ rural–urban Íslenska þjóðfélagið, 8. árgangur 2017, 1. tbl., 23-42. Útgefandi: Félagsfræðingafélag Íslands Introduction In this article we examine whether there is a difference in the abstainers’ personal reasoning as to why they did not vote in the 2014 local government election in Iceland, depending on their age and residency. In the 2014 local election, turnout was strikingly lower than before. The overall turnout rate was 66.5 %, and had decreased by seven percentage points from the previous election in 2010. In the three biggest municipalities, turnout in 2014 was lower than the overall turnout, or approximately 60%. Furthermore, turnout has decreased sharply in local elections in Iceland over an eight-year period, in the 2006, 2010 and 2014 elections, with a total decrease of 12 percentage points. A decrease in turnout in general calls for explanations, and specifically the dramatic decrease seen in Icelandic local elections. In modern representative democracies, electoral participation is one of the crucial elements of the implementation of democracy. We can say that one of the grounds for a representative democracy to function effectively and maintain its legitimacy is that as many as possible participate in elections. It can be argued that turnout is an important factor in the political support of elected representatives and that the lower the turnout, the more difficult it is to claim that the system works as a popular government. In elections, voters grant parties and/or candidates a mandate to make binding decisions on their behalf, and in this respect it can be regarded as a prospective mandate. At the same time, electoral participation together with party choice can also be regarded as a retrospective verdict in the sense that voters cast their verdict over parties’ and candidates’ past performance in office (e.g. Lijphart 1997). Electoral participation as one of the most important mechanisms in the representational bond between electors and the elected is thus crucial for representative democracy and its legitimacy. For these reasons, it is important to understand why people do not vote. The general focus in the literature on electoral turnout and electoral participation has most often been on comparing those that do vote to those that do not (e.g., Blais 2006; Geys 2006). In this paper, we draw from this body of literature but take a different approach and focus on those who do not vote and their personal reasoning for abstaining. Even though the focus in the literature about turnout and electoral participation has been on voting or not voting, it implicitly has implications for what to expect in regard to abstainers’ personal reasoning for not voting. Turnout and electoral participation Research on voter turnout has focused on explaining turnout in first-order elections, which are national parliamentary elections and, in presidential systems, national presidential elections (Reif and Schmitt 1980). Turnout in second-order elections; that is, a number of other elections within political systems, such as municipal elections, by-elections, regional elections and local government elections, has been researched to a much lesser extent. This could be due to the higher importance of national elections, in which more powerful institutions are elected. Voter turnout varies to a considerable extent between countries and between elections (e.g., Franklin et al. 2004; Blais 2006), including Western democracies, but the general trend has been a decline in turnout (e.g., Franklin et al. 2004). Various explanations as to what affects turnout have been suggested and tested (e.g., Blais 2006; Geys 2006), but the results are far from clear. There are a few general trends that seem to consistently explain turnout. Blais (2006) identifies three main impacts that have been debated, including the impact of institutions (e.g., compulsory voting and the electoral system), socio-economic development (e.g., poverty) and the impact of party systems and electoral outcomes (e.g., the number of parties and the closeness of the electoral outcome). The impact of institutions on turnout 24 Grétar Þór Eyþórsson and Eva H. Önnudóttir seems to be relatively weak, apart from compulsory voting where turnout is higher. It is consistently found that turnout is lower in poorer countries and that a greater number of parties decreases turnout. Geys (2006) highlights population size, closeness of elections, stability of the population1 and campaign expenditure as explanations for turnout. When the population is smaller and more stable, the election results are expected to be close, and when more is spent on the campaign, turnout is higher. In addition to this, age has been shown to be consistently linked to electoral participation (e.g., Franklin 2004; Blais 2006; Bengtsson 2008). Decreasing turnout has been explained as a long-term consequence of the lowering of the minimum age for voting in the 1970s and 1980s (Franklin 2004). Age, as an individual- level factor, has also been shown to be linked to turnout, where younger voters are in general less likely to vote. Franklin (2004) argues that young voters are in a phase in their lives where the motives to vote are limited. Bhatti et al. (2012) make the point that the correlation between age and turnout is curvilinear, where both older and younger voters are less likely to vote. Lower turnout among senior citizens, specifically women, is associated with physical infirmities, a limited social network and the fact that older women vote to a lesser extent due to socialisation in their formative years (Bhatti et al. 2012, pp. 588–589). Electoral participation can be regarded as an act of habituation. The more often one votes, the more likely he or she is to vote again (e.g., Franklin et al. 2004; Alfaro-Redondo 2014), and low turnout among younger voters is because they have not yet established the habit of voting. Franklin et al. (2004) show that low turnout in previous elections predicts an even lower turnout in later elections. They argue that this is due to a generational change, that young voters who do not participate in elections do not establish the habit of voting, and when this generation grows older and new generations of voters, who are also less likely to vote, come of age, turnout decreases even further. Franklin et al. (2004) argue that the reason for not voting is that elections today are now less competitive than they used to be in the sense that they are less likely to bring about a policy change. Thus voters, particularly young ones, are less mobilised to vote. A related explanation is that ties between political parties and interest organisations are not as strong as before, which makes it more difficult for parties to mobilise people to vote (Powell 1982; Wattenberg 2000). Bengtsson et al. (2014) make the point that when voters do not care about voting, it could be taken as a sign of discontent or frustration. Therefore, it is important to investigate the sources for not voting. Verba et al. (1995) name three main reasons for not voting: 1) People cannot vote, meaning that they do not have the necessary resources to vote due to, for example, lack of time, lack of necessary knowledge or that they do not have enough economic resources to go and vote.